Radeon RX 6750 XT vs HD 6320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6320 with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.
6750 XT outperforms HD 6320 by a whopping 14046% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1344 | 72 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 49.58 |
| Power efficiency | 1.49 | 15.19 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Loveland | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 March 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $554.99 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
HD 6320 and RX 6750 XT have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 80 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 508 MHz | 2150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.064 | 416.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08128 TFLOPS | 13.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 8 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 640 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 96 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 1−2
−16200%
| 163
+16200%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 88 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 50 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 554.99
−16378%
| 3.37
+16378%
|
| 1440p | no data | 6.24 |
| 4K | no data | 10.98 |
- RX 6750 XT has 16378% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−16400%
|
165
+16400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3320%
|
171
+3320%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−12600%
|
127
+12600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−4700%
|
190−200
+4700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−2720%
|
141
+2720%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−958%
|
270−280
+958%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1893%
|
270−280
+1893%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−10800%
|
109
+10800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1440%
|
154
+1440%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−4700%
|
190−200
+4700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−2020%
|
106
+2020%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4800%
|
245
+4800%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−958%
|
270−280
+958%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9700%
|
98
+9700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1210%
|
131
+1210%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−4700%
|
190−200
+4700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−1480%
|
79
+1480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2600%
|
135
+2600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−958%
|
270−280
+958%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−4100%
|
126
+4100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−36000%
|
350−400
+36000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−15300%
|
150−160
+15300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−10400%
|
100−110
+10400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 130−140 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−643%
|
104
+643%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−14550%
|
290−300
+14550%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−8000%
|
80−85
+8000%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3500%
|
70−75
+3500%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 353
+0%
|
353
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 346
+0%
|
346
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 217
+0%
|
217
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220
+0%
|
220
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170
+0%
|
170
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 158
+0%
|
158
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
This is how HD 6320 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is 16200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6750 XT is 36000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT performs better in 31 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 49.51 |
| Recency | 15 August 2011 | 3 March 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 250 Watt |
HD 6320 has 1288.9% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 14045.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6320 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 6750 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
